Five Pebbles from the Brook | Page 5

of the author of it. For instance, he says ch. xxvi. 24[fn7], that Jesus told Peter, that "before the cock crew he should deny him thrice;" the same is also found in Mark ch. xiv. 30. in Luke ch. xxii. 54[fn8], and in John ch. xiii. 38. Now it is asserted in the Mishna (i. e the oral law of the Jews.) in the Bava Kama according to Mr. Everett p. 448. of his work, that cocks were not permitted in Jerusalem where Peter's denial took place; [probably because that bird is constantly scratching up the ground with his feet, and was thereby liable to turn up impurities, by touching which in passing by, a Jew would be ceremonially defiled, and rendered incapable of visiting the Temple to perform his devotions, till after the evening of the day on which the defilement took place], therefore all the four Gospels which all contain, this story, must have been written by Gentiles ignorant of the custom which belies the story.
Some Christian writers have endeavoured to get rid of this objection, by attempting to prove "that the crowing of the cock here mentioned, does not mean actually the crowing of a cock, but 'the sound of a trumpet!'" while others, blushing at the hardihood of their brethren, think it more prudent to maintain, that the author of the Mishna was ignorant of Jewish customs, and that the writers of the Gospels were perfectly acquainted with them; and that therefore every good Christian was bound in conscience not to regard the objection.
But the prohibition of cocks from entering the Holy city is so perfectly of a piece with many other cautions against defilement observed by the Jews, and is so perfectly in the taste of the times of the Pharisees, "the careful washers of plates and platters,"--the "tithers of mint, anise, and cummin," not to mention the reason above expressed, which perhaps was, to say truth, according to the regulations against defilement contained in the Pentateuch a sufficient reason for excluding that bird from the city, where stood the Temple, that the reader will probably believe that such a custom might have existed.
Again, it is said Matt. xxvii. 62, that the Chief Priests and Pharisees went to Pilate; demanded a guard; went to the Sepulchre of Jesus, sealed the door, and set watch. Now Jesus is said to have arisen on the day after this, on the first day of the week, i.e. Sunday, of course the day before was Saturday of the Jewish Sabbath. I maintain that the Chief Priests and Pharisees, who objected to Jesus curing the sick and rubbing corn from the ear, in order to satisfy his hunger on the Sabbath day; I maintain that it is utterly incredible, that these men should have gone to Pilate on public business, and transacted all this on their Sabbath. For such an action would have come completely within the spirit, and the letter of the Laws against breaking the Sabbath contained in the-Pentateuch, which makes the penalty of such actions as are here ascribed to the Chief Priests and rigorous Pharisees, nothing less than stoning to death. I infer therefore, that the author of the Gospel of Matthew was ignorant of this, and of course not a Jew, and consequently not Matthew.
I would observe further, in connection with this subject, that Jesus is represented, Matt. xxiii. 35, as saying, that upon the Jews of this time should come "the blood of Zecharias the son of Barachias whom ye slew between the Temple and the altar." Now, I believe that it is recorded in Josephus' history, that the Jews slew this Zecharias in the time of the Jewish war, about forty years after Jesus is represented as saying, that they had killed him already. Of course Jesus never could have said this, nor would a Jew acquainted with the times, as Matthew must have been, have been guilty of such an anachronism. The writer of that Gospel must therefore, have been a Gentile, and not Matthew. The same mistake is made by Luke xi. 51.
On turning his attention to the external evidence in favour of the authenticity of the Gospels, the difficulties and objections accumulate. He will find, that they are not mentioned by any writer earlier than the latter half of the second century, after the birth of Jesus. The first writers who name the four Gospels, were Irenaeus, and Tertullian.[fn9] The competency of the testimony of these Fathers of the church, as to the genuineness of these books, is invalidated by the fact, (See Middleton's Free Enquiry) that they admitted the principle of the lawfulness of pious frauds, and from their having acted upon this principle, in having asserted in their writings, as from their personal knowledge, things which were certainly